search_ads

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the product requirement and parameter constraints, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs beyond the product requirement, pagination behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description provides some context but leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, context about the Ad Library, requirements, parameters, and return values. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations. The only minor inefficiency is the slightly redundant 'Args:' and 'Returns:' headers when the content already flows logically.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description provides good coverage. It explains the purpose, requirements, all parameters, and what the tool returns. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail the return structure. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context that annotations would normally provide.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. It successfully explains all four parameters: keyword ('Search term to find in ad content'), advertiser ('Company/advertiser name to search for'), country ('ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code'), and count ('Number of results to return' with default and max values). This provides meaningful semantic context beyond what the bare schema offers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search for ads') and resource ('in the LinkedIn Ad Library'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_ads_by_advertiser and search_ads_by_keyword. It explicitly mentions the Ad Library's transparency function, providing additional context about what the tool accesses.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context by stating that at least one of keyword or advertiser must be provided, and mentions the requirement for 'LinkedIn Ad Library' product to be enabled. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools search_ads_by_advertiser and search_ads_by_keyword.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.